West Asset Holdings Pty Limited v Sara Investments (NSW) Pty Limited [2022] NSWSC 674

West Asset Holdings Pty Limited v Sara Investments (NSW) Pty Limited [2022] NSWSC 674

The Put and Call Option dated 18 October 2019, and the contract created by its exercise specifying a price of $7.385 million, are valid and binding. The first plaintiff duly exercised the call option; the contract should be specifically performed. There is no enforceable agreement for a lease in favour of the second plaintiff. The second defendant's occupation is that of a monthly tenant. The forklift and cool room motors are included in the sale. Competing damages claims are reserved for further consideration.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Specific performance granted to first plaintiff; second defendant held to be a monthly tenant; second plaintiff found to have no interest; damages claims reserved; further orders and directions to be made after submissions.
Legal Topics
['specific Performance' 'call Options' 'conveyancing' 'remedies' 'monthly Tenancy' 'lease Agreements']
['equity' 'contract Law' 'land Law'] ['specific Performance' 'call Options' 'conveyancing' 'remedies' 'monthly Tenancy' 'lease Agreements']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract for purchase of the Property under the exercised call option' 'Whether the contract price is $7.385 million or $7.5 million' 'Whether the second plaintiff is entitled to a lease of the Property' 'Occupational status and rights of the second defendant regarding the Property' 'Entitlement to ownership of the forklift and cool room motors as part of the sale']

Ratio Decidendi

The Put and Call Option dated 18 October 2019, and the contract created by its exercise specifying a price of $7.385 million, are valid and binding. The first plaintiff duly exercised the call option; the contract should be specifically performed. There is no enforceable agreement for a lease in favour of the second plaintiff. The second defendant's occupation is that of a monthly tenant. The forklift and cool room motors are included in the sale. Competing damages claims are reserved for further consideration.

Court Disposition

Specific performance granted to first plaintiff; second defendant held to be a monthly tenant; second plaintiff found to have no interest; damages claims reserved; further orders and directions to be made after submissions.

Orders

  • ['Declare the Put and Call Option valid and binding on the parties.' 'Declare the first plaintiff duly exercised the call option.' 'Declare the contract at $7.385 million is valid and binding.' 'Order specific performance of the contract in favour of the first plaintiff.' 'Declare inclusion of forklift and cool room...